I remember having several QSOs with myself on 73kHz. Once drove 8km from home to /P sites several times to test the distance before other stations appeared. One time the signal just stopped, so went
Yes, of course. It important to remember that 9kHz is still "the lonely dreamer's band". Pile-ups and other "traffic jams" are still quite rare (!) so the risk of misreading a callsign is minimal. Th
Hi Johan, You are right but first i think (and hope) there will come up other TX stations. Otherwise it would make no sense to discuss whats necessary for a 2 way QSO ;-) And 137kHz also started with
Hello all, Stefan is not the only one in 9kHz. But he is actually the most successful experimenter. The question about a valid "QSO" seemi to me some academic. If we think about DXCC we've got to kee
The next important step is to convince DF6NM (and others) to buy such a kite! ;-) 73, Stefan Am 30.03.2010 10:50, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: Hi Johan, You are right but first i think (and hope) there wi
The requirement for the exchange of two complete callsigns makes extremely poor use of a limited time slot. Even HF DXers do not do this any more. I believe there are two minimum requirements: The fi
Stefan, for EME (see : http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf ) The definition of a minimum valid QSO is that both stations have copied all of the following: 1. Both callsigns from the othe
Dear Group, Recently i talked to Markus/DF6NM what has at least to be transmitted within a valid QSO in very slow DFCW. I mean a 2way contact, not a beacon reception report! Those of you (and others)
